Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:WMDs? Chemical weapons? Wait, what? (Score 2) 376

by DG (#48158663) Attached to: Pentagon Reportedly Hushed Up Chemical Weapons Finds In Iraq

I doubt I'll have much success in this, but I've tilted and windmills before:

Chemical Weapons are indeed "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - and the key characteristic that makes them so is *indescrimination*.

A straight-up HE bomb (or even a pie-in-the-sky KE weapon) has a known blast radius around its intended target. Pick target, apply Circular Error Probable, apply blast radius, and you now have a circle that pretty accurately defines the amount of damage that weapon will do.

With a Chemical, Nuclear, or Biological weapon, that calculation no longer applies. With each, you get a cloud of contamination whose extent and direction you cannot predict, and - as the contamination is persistant to some degree - you cannot predict the number of unintended exposures to weapon effects after the fact.

A single machine gun, or even a knife, given enough persistance and patience, can indeed kill as many people as any CBRN strike. But unlike the CBRN strike, each person killed will have been done so purpously and with intent - and in the occasion of unintended casualties, those numbers will be small. Not so with a CBRN strike on a military target outside a city, when the wind changes and accidentally contaminates a major populated area..

It is that capability to expose large numbers of non-combatants to weapons effects *indescriminately* from actual combatants that makes these "WMDs"

Comment: Re:Why is the paper so important? (Score 1) 447

by grub (#48130513) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

The three of us walking around as a happy family is a public statement of commitment, no? When we were at Walking with Dinosaurs yesterday morning, no one questioned any papers or marital status. In fact there were thousands of people there, certainly a more truly public statement than hand-picked relatives & friends who feel compelled to show up for a plate of free food and booze.

It would cost time and money for something none of us care about. We'd rather spend our money on winter family holidays or finish off the new kitchen or new pool deck or just put extra into our daughter's education fund (which is appreciable already).

Not arguing, just pointing out that people have different priorities.

Comment: Re:Why is the paper so important? (Score 1) 447

by grub (#48129823) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

So what you're saying is that everyone considers you married already, so effectively you are.

In essence, yes. The key is that the government recognizes it for taxation and other family matters. In our province here in .CA in 2014 marriage would be an expense with no payoff. We'd be better off blowing that money on lottery tickets.

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

Working...